An article I read recently described the increasing relaxation of film censorship in the UK since Thatcher’s neo-puritanism, when all manner of horror films were labelled ‘video nasties’ and blasted by the moral outrage of Daily Mail readers around the country. The author described the British Board of Film Certification as having relaxed to a previously unheard-of degree.
At the same time, music videos are getting away with far more than once would have been the case. Holly Valance’s Kiss Kiss, where the Australian darling has her nudity barely concealed by beams of light, slipped from a post-watershed complete version showing to anytime. The ‘extreme’ videos sometimes collected late at night on MTV just don’t seem shocking to me any more; it just feels old hat.
So: am I just older and more cynical, or is it more difficult to shock in the mass media now? If so, why? Has ‘shock value’ become a marketing tool like any other, and lost its impact as a result? Or are we just more mature and less ‘delicate’ or sheltered in our sensibilities than previous generations?
I think the whole Bart Simpson logic comes into play. Fri 13th seems pretty lame nowadays. I’ve never really been shocked by anything I’ve seen that was fiction. Some things have scared me somewhat but that’s different than what you’re talking about.
“Smack your bitch up” caused a bit of a stir a few years ago but I can’t really remember a cause celeb apart from Mr. Morris.
Mind you, that almost seems to be the exception that proves the rule. I don’t remember much genuine fuss around Smack My Bitch Up – it seemed to be mostly confined to outraged letters in the tabloids and highbrow semantic discussions in the broadsheets (and some nice publicity for a designed-to-be-talked-about video).
Yes; Sadly, I believe we’re not easely shocked anymore.
Not so much at nudity - I never found that shocking- but when we see another starving child in Africa or another mass-murderer or the hunderdth bombing anywhere.
I don’t think I’ve ever been shocked by anything the advertising world produces. But I do get mildly depressed by the banality and pointlessness of - for example, and as could be seen on Knightsbridge recently - 40-feet high banners with the single word “FCUK” in giant white letters on a black background for maximum clarity.
I’m no prude, I love a good swear as much as (if not more than) anybody and am a lecherous swine to boot, but I reckon that if you’re going to sail close to the edge of acceptability in public, you have to be clever about it. There is nothing clever about the word ‘fuck’ on it’s own, but you can be sure some greasy ad executive got paid a jillion dollar bonus for it. That’s what gets me. Where’s the army of Disgusteds of Tunbridge Wells when you really need them?
Showing how it should be done, there’s a new Fosters ad on the telly in the UK that ends with a housekeeping robot in bed with a vacuum cleaner. The nozzle of the vacuum cleaner is obscured by duvet, but is clearly nestling in the robot’s groin area. Gee, what sexual act is being explicitly detailed here, I didn’t wonder? But I don’t mind! The ad - and you have to see it to appreciate it - is so brilliantly done, so side-splittingly funny, that the blatant sexual aspect of it doesn’t matter.
I teach part-time. It’s at a school for future media workers. They employ people from the industry, who brings in perspective and up-to-date things from the real world to the sheltered world that most teaching institutions are.
These 18-22 year olds are all going through their sturm und drang period of life, where they consider the media to be evil, by being so bland. When they start, all of them wants to be columnists, exposing the great conspiracies of our time, work with satire ASF. We usually end up having a seminar about provocations in media. What is provocative nowadays?
I’m fully aqware about the cultural gap 'tween US and Europe and our more relaxed/slack views on sex on TV. So, last winter was the first time for live, actual, sexual intercourse on TV, in Big Brother. It was not the porn variety, with close ups, but still… Reaction from the public? Big Deal, was basically what they say.
During the last seminar we agreed on the one thing that would cause a total moral outrage, from all groups in society: Senseless violence to small furry animals.
Things might be diferent from country7 to country, but I think that will be the last line to cross. I think it would upset more than ritual human sacrifice, although it might be a tie.
How long till we get a TV Show called “Duell”? In my own wake up nightmares about the industry I work for, it boils down to this: When the people’s televised courts don’t settle a feud, the two antagonists get to settle ‘out of court’ with pistols/swords at dawn or fistfight to the death. You think it’s to over the top? Let’s see in 15 years…
I do wonder: what will happen when we can send a broadband video/audio signal a la T.V. over the internet for the price of a T.V.? Basically, there will be no enforceable regs anymore: people will watch what they want.
The dada folks were the last to use shock effectively. Now I can’t see it being anything other than a cliche. It certainly doesn’t provoke any non-pedestrian thoughts.
I recall a performance artist who tortured a rat on stage using fire during the 1970s IIRC. Joe Coleman bit the head off of rats.
Those who engage in illegal acts should be obliged to add a “prison piece” to their performance, IMO. Otherwise, to shock is to elicit a yawn from me.
To provide insight, however: that’s something I can support.
On a related note, shock rocker Marilyn Manson has also adopted dada for his new style and album, supposedly an industrial mix of vaudeville and cabaret, and possibly influenced by his girlfriend, burlesque icon Dita Von Teese.
